INTRODUCTION: To demonstrate any differences in the perioperative, functional and oncologic outcomes after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) among those patients having previously performed transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and those not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 35 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer (T1a and T1b) after TURP, underwent RRP and completed a 1 year follow up (group A). They were matched with a cohort of another 35 men (group B) in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), prostatic specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, prostate volume (before surgery), pathological stage and neurovascular bundle-sparing technique. That was a retrospective study completed between September 2011 and March 2014. RESULTS: Not a significant difference was demonstrated among the two groups of patients concerning the functional and oncologic results. On the other hand, previous prostate surgery made the operation procedure more demanding. Besides, operative time and blood loss (though not translated in transfusion rates) were higher among patients in group A. Besides, catheter removal in group A patients was performed later than their counterparts of group B. CONCLUSIONS: RRP after TURP is a relatively safe procedure and in the hands of experienced surgeons, a previously performed TURP, does not seem to compromise oncologic outcomes of the operation. Continence is preserved, though erectile function seems to be compromised compared with patients undergoing RRP without prior TURP. Moreover, defining the prostate and bladder neck margins can be challenging and the surgeon has to be aware of the difficulties that might confront.
INTRODUCTION: To demonstrate any differences in the perioperative, functional and oncologic outcomes after radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) among those patients having previously performed transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and those not. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 35 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer (T1a and T1b) after TURP, underwent RRP and completed a 1 year follow up (group A). They were matched with a cohort of another 35 men (group B) in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), prostatic specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, prostate volume (before surgery), pathological stage and neurovascular bundle-sparing technique. That was a retrospective study completed between September 2011 and March 2014. RESULTS: Not a significant difference was demonstrated among the two groups of patients concerning the functional and oncologic results. On the other hand, previous prostate surgery made the operation procedure more demanding. Besides, operative time and blood loss (though not translated in transfusion rates) were higher among patients in group A. Besides, catheter removal in group A patients was performed later than their counterparts of group B. CONCLUSIONS: RRP after TURP is a relatively safe procedure and in the hands of experienced surgeons, a previously performed TURP, does not seem to compromise oncologic outcomes of the operation. Continence is preserved, though erectile function seems to be compromised compared with patients undergoing RRP without prior TURP. Moreover, defining the prostate and bladder neck margins can be challenging and the surgeon has to be aware of the difficulties that might confront.